First a trickle....Now a flood

[Goddess]

aI feel like with the Damar Hamlin thing, there was brain death on the field.

Tough choice for the family.  As a death doula, I see how agonizing it is.  Sad.

 

[Goddess]

 

Florida will be investigating the large number of sudden deaths at home.

In a study of 35 of such deaths, 4 were definitely attributed to the vaccine, others were likely but not proven.

[Goddess]

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/health-care-workers-cry-foul-fda-claiming-it-didnt-prohibit-ivermectin-covid-19

Now the FDA is claiming they did not forbid Ivermectin.

Why this constant lying and attempts to re-write history?

[eyeball]

On 1/3/2023 at 9:21 PM, Goddess said:

There are some studies coming out now regarding repeat infections - getting covid over and over.  Basically very hard on your body organs. I need to go over them before I post.

The problem is - it's mainly the vaxxed getting repeat infections.

Horseshit.

[Goddess]

I've mentioned before that I am in a control group study. I just filed my report for December.

There is a section of the website for news and such - the control group study had this to report, representing the duration of the study so far:

• There is just shy of 19,000 people reporting each month (18,967, to be exact).
• Everyone is unvaccinated.
• Out of the 19,000 - 5,196 reported a suspected or known SARS-Cov2 infection, since the beginning of the study.
• Of the 5,196 cases, only 74 reported being hospitalized, either as inpatient or outpatient. 
• That's 1.4% of the total cases that required some kind of hospitalization and it is 0.4% of the group cohort.
• As a rough comparison, data from New York as of August 2022 indicates that 0.52% of vaccinated individuals have been hospitalized.
• Vitamins C and D, zinc and quercetin are used regularly by the majority of the total cohort.

 

[Goddess]

Oh WOW.

The weekly covid report in Australia, week ending Dec. 31 (pertinent chart is on page 4, vax status is near the bottom of the chart):

NSW Respiratory Surveillance Report - week ending 31 December 2022

1,770 hospitalized: NO UNVAXXED

810 with 4 or more doses hospitalized.

140 in ICU: NO UNVAXXED

58 with 4 or more doses

95 deaths: 53 with 4 or more doses

[Goddess]

Double WOW.

They're also not going to be reporting by vax status any more.

What a shocker.  Every country, does this when the numbers start going the OTHER way.

 

At the beginning of the vax rollout, when unvaccinated deaths exceeded vaccinated, it was publicized by MSM everywhere. Now the opposite is happening and nothing but crickets from them.

The censorship by government, MSM & big pharma is still going on.

Interesting that there were 6 deaths, but no hosp/ICU for unvaxxed. Are we supposed to believe that they were all too stubborn to seek medical help when they were getting close to death? Or were there contributing factors, like car crashes, falling off ladders, gunshot wounds...

Edited January 7, 2023 by Goddess

[Goddess]

I can already see what some are going to post about the Australian data:

[Goddess]

Pfizer has habitually engaged in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribed physicians, & suppressed adverse trial results. This is no secret, yet this fact continues to be brushed under the rug by politicians & the media:

1994 - Pfizer pays out $200 million to settle claims that the company lied to get federal approval for a heart valve and then covered up safety concerns as the device killed hundreds of patients.

1996 - Pfizer experiments on 200 Nigerian children without informing their parents that an approved cure existed or that their children were subjects of a medical experiment. Eleven children died. Others suffered brain damage, organ failure, or paralysis.

2001 - Pfizer is sued on behalf of 30 Nigerian families who alleged their "children were used as human guinea pigs." The families claimed Pfizer violated the Nuremberg Code and exposed their children to "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment." The case was dismissed.

2002 - Pfizer agrees to pay $49 million to settle allegations that the drug company defrauded the federal government and 40 states by charging too much for its cholesterol treatment Lipitor. Pfizer's revenue for Lipitor in 2001 was $6.45 billion

2007 - The Nigerian government sued Pfizer for $7 billion and accused the company of "carrying out illegal trials" that "killed or disabled children." Nigeria claimed Pfizer did not inform local health authorities or parents that the children were part of an experiment.

2008 - The NYT published an article entitled, “Experts Conclude Pfizer Manipulated Studies.” Pfizer delayed the publication of negative studies, spun negative data more positively, and suppressed negative findings to promote Neurontin. Experts Conclude Pfizer Manipulated Studies - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

2009 - Pfizer paid $750M to settle 35,000 claims that its drug, Rezulin, was responsible for 63 deaths and dozens of liver failures. The FDA did not remove Rezulin from the market until three years after the UK had, despite a mounting death toll.

2009 - Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion, then the largest healthcare fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the US. Pfizer pled guilty to paying kickbacks to doctors and illegally promoting — Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox, and Lyrica. CNN's Anderson Cooper: If Pfizer is too big to fail and even the biggest fine in history is just a few months' profits, then what's going to stop it from illegally promoting other drugs? Critics say nothing. They say it's the cost of doing business.

2010 - Leaked State Department cables alleged that Pfizer had hired investigators to blackmail Nigeria's Attorney General into dropping the $7 billion lawsuit against Pfizer.  WikiLeaks cables: Pfizer 'used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout' | Pfizer | The Guardian

2010 - Pfizer is ordered to pay $142 million in damages for violating federal anti-racketeering laws by its fraudulent sale and marketing of Neurontin. The jury found that Pfizer violated the RICO act. Neurontin Lawsuits - Pfizer Illegal Marketing, Injury Claims (yourlawyer.com)

2010 - Pfizer admits that it paid $20 million to 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals for consulting and speaking on its behalf during the last six months of 2009. The disclosure was required due to a settlement agreement for the illegal promotion of drugs.

2010 - Blue Cross filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, accusing the pharmaceutical giant of illegally bribing 5,000 doctors with lavish Caribbean vacations, golf games, cash payments, massages, and other recreational activities.

2012 - The SEC charged Pfizer with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for bribing foreign healthcare professionals in Bulgaria, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Serbia. Pfizer settled for $60 million.

2012 - Pfizer paid $1.2 billion to settle claims by nearly 10,000 women that its drug, Prempro, caused breast cancer. This included punitive damages for the pharmaceutical giant withholding warnings about the risk of breast cancer.

2012 - In 2012, Pfizer paid $55 million to settle criminal charges for illegally promoting its proton pump inhibitor Protonix. 

2013 - Pfizer paid $273 million to settle claims by over 2000 people that its drug, Chantix, caused suicidal thoughts and severe psychological disorders. Pfizer settles 2,000-plus Chantix suits, takes $273M charge | Fierce Pharma

2016 - Pfizer paid $784 million to settle a medicare fraud case for its promotion of Protonix. There are over 13,000 proton pump inhibitor lawsuits pending in federal court — which claim that Pfizer and other drug manufacturers — withheld warning signs of kidney disease, acute interstitial nephritis, and kidney failure.

 

"Virtually every major drug company has either been convicted of fraud or reached a settlement. Is fraud the business model of the pharmaceutical industry?"

~~ Bernie Sanders ~~

 

 

......but don't worry, they're telling you the truth this time.

 

 

 

 

[Goddess]

 

[Goddess]

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine | medRxiv

Cohort for this study was 51,011 employees of the Cleveland Clinic and was a 3-month study from the date of the first bivalent booster dosages given on Sept. 12, 2022.

Pertinents:

Among 51,011 employees - 

• 20,689 (41%) had had a previous documented episode of COVID-19,
• 42,064 (83%) had received at least two doses of a vaccine.
• 10,804 (21%) were bivalent vaccine boosted
• COVID-19 occurred in 2,452 (5%) during the study.

(Pfizer 89%, Moderna 11%)

NOTE: this study is based on large numbers:

• Doses, 0 = 6,419 (12.6%)
• Doses, 1 = 2,528 (5%)
• Doses, 2 = 14,810 (45.9%)
• Doses, 3 = 23,396 (45.9%)
• Doses 4 = 3,757 (7.4%)
• Doses 5 = 85 (<1%)
• Doses 6 = 16 (<1%)

The risk of COVID-19 varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received.

The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19.

Vaccine doses versus risk of covid during the 3-month study period:

• One dose - 1.7 times more likely to test positive for covid
• Two doses - 2.63 times more likely to test positive for covid
• Three doses - 3.1 times more likely to test positive for covid
• More than three doses - 3.8 times more likely to test positive for covid

Compared to the unvaccinated

Leading to an estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 30% - REMINDER that until these inoculations, a vaccine needed to show at least 50% efficacy to be used in humans.

P = 0.001 means 999 out of 1,000 likely to be a genuine result

That 99.9% likely to be a genuine result

ALSO NOTE: Again, it is NOT the CDC, FDA, NIH or any other entity doing these studies.  Why aren't they?

So.......

you can make decisions based on this study (and other studies that show the same) or you can go with Eyeball's highly intellectual and scientifically based analysis of the situation based on his 3-year long in-depth studies of CBC headlines, which is much easier to read and understand than actual medical studies and data - "Horseshit."

[Goddess]

John Ioannidis Warned COVID-19 Could Be a “Once-In-A-Century” Data Fiasco. He Was Right - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)

COVID-19 has been far from the deadliest virus in modern history, but it has been the most divisive. The public, politicians, policy experts, and public health officials have disagreed on how deadly it is and how best to contain it.

But the one thing everyone seems to agree on is the numbers we have—fatalities and cases—are way wrong. A new CDC report estimates COVID-19 rates about 10 times higher than reported. Ioannidis put the figure even higher, estimating weeks ago that as many 300 million people had already been infected globally.

Deaths are more complicated.

The New York Times says COVID-19 deaths have been massively undercounted. Dr. Ashish Jha, speaking to Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC, agreed, saying most experts agreed there is a “substantial undercount.”

Others, including nearly one-third of Americans according to a recent survey, believe that the COVID-19 death toll is inflated. This includes physicians who say medical professionals are being pressured by hospital administrators to add coronavirus to death sheets.

Writing at the American Mind, Angelo Codevilla recently argued if the CDC had used the same criterion for the SARS virus as COVID-19—primarily “severe acute respiratory distress syndrome”—total COVID fatalities in the US would have been 16,000 through June.

Nobody knows the true count, of course. But the one thing left and right seem to agree on is the data we have are junk. And yet the lesson we keep hearing is “trust the experts.”

But thinkers as diverse as Matthew Yglesias at Vox to author Matt Ridley have pointed out the dangers of blindly following “the experts,” especially when they’ve shown themselves to be spectacularly wrong from the very beginning on the COVID-19 pandemic.

"It's dangerous to rely too much on models (which lead politicians to) lock down society and destroy people's livelihood,” Ridley recently told John Stossel.

Ridley has a point. The experts can’t agree on their own numbers or even clearly answer if a man who died in a motorcycle accident while infected should be labeled as a COVID-19 death.

In light of this, perhaps it’s time for the experts to exercise some humility and begin offering guidance to individuals instead of advocating collective blunt force.

[Goddess]

 

 

[Goddess]

Incidence of acute myocarditis and pericarditis during the c... : Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine (lww.com)

The aim of this study is to explore the incidence and prevalence of acute inflammatory heart diseases analyzing the occurrence of these diseases prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Overall, the cases of myocarditis (including also cases of perimyocarditis with minimal signs of pericardial involvement) were 92 in PRECOVID and 67 in the COVID period. The annual incidence of myocarditis was significantly higher in PRECOVID than in the COVID period, respectively 8.1/100 000/year vs. 5.9/100 000 year (IRT 1.37, 95% CI 0.99–1.99, P = 0.047), consisting of a net reduction of 27% of cases.

 

We have analyzed the impact of the pandemic on the incidence of acute inflammatory heart diseases in a definite area with a population of more than 1 million inhabitants. The main findings of our study show that: compared with the PRECOVID period, a 27% decrease in the annual incidence of myocarditis was found during the COVID pandemic; the greater decrease in the incidence of myocarditis was recorded in young patients and particularly in those under the age of 34 years; myocarditis observed in the COVID period showed greater severity of LV involvement with higher wall motion abnormalities, a greater number of LGE segments and higher ventricular mass index than those observed in PRECOVID period; finally, no difference regarding pericarditis was observed between the COVID and PRECOVID periods.

This is the first study showing the incidence of acute inflammatory heart diseases during the COVID pandemic. 

The reduced incidence of non-COVID myocarditis during the COVID period is supported by a reduction the respiratory pathogens (i.e. adenovirus, influenza) with myocardial trophism. Furthermore, the use of sanitizing gel and/or medical gloves may have contributed also to the decrease in the incidence of some gastrointestinal viruses with some aptitude to myocarditis such, as coxsackie virus and echovirus. Indeed, during the COVID period, we have observed a greater reduction in myocarditis particularly in young patients, aged less than 34 years. The decrease in myocarditis incidence of such a group of young patients, representing the most involved class of age in PRECOVID, could be partially explained by the restriction on social life that were imposed during our COVID period of observation (closure of discotheques, disco-bars, pubs, etc.).

In Fig. 1, the annual incidence per 100 000 inhabitants of myocarditis is shown for all the classes of age from 12 to greater than 74 years old. As is evident from the graph, most of the differences in the incidence of myocarditis are because of a significant decrease in cases of myocarditis in the ages between 17 and 34 years. Particularly, the incidence of myocarditis was significantly lower in COVID than in PRECOVID in the class of age 18–24 <th>years (P = 0.048).

However, the finding of a decrease in the overall incidence of myocarditis during COVID could be considered as indirect proof of the absence of a substantial impact of SARS-CoV-2 on the risk of myocarditis.

[Goddess]

JCM | Free Full-Text | The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients&mdash;A Large Population-Based Study (mdpi.com)

I do see some flaws in this study, so make of it what you will. 

Co-morbidities and underlying health condition and socioeconomic determinants of health and socioeconomic inequalities are not taken into consideration.  It didn't bother controlling for undiagnosed myocarditis. If you don't look for it, how can you know if it's there or not?

It does agree with other, better studies.

Quote

"Our data suggest that there is no increase in the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-19 recovered patients compared to uninfected matched controls."

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Goddess

[Goddess]

That time, 2 years ago, when this chick almost blew the whole scam.

Quote

Jun.08 -- Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, says transmission of the coronavirus by people who aren’t showing symptoms is "very rare.” She spoke Monday at a briefing in Geneva.

 

[Goddess]

This young lady had already had covid, so was immune. But media coverage convinced her that she needed the shot to do the things she wanted to do in the world.

She did not tell her parents she was getting the jabs.  They only found out after she died suddenly, days after getting it.

Let me say it loud - YOUR LYING MISINFORMATION THAT THERE IS NO NATURAL IMMUNITY TO COVID IS KILLING PEOPLE.

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Goddess

[Goddess]

Edmonton news tonight.

Not sure how many times this has to happen on the air before some of you start putting the pieces together.

A very young reporter from Regina "died suddenly" recently, as well.

 

 

[dialamah]

On 1/8/2023 at 8:32 PM, Goddess said:

Edmonton news tonight.

Not sure how many times this has to happen on the air before some of you start putting the pieces together.

A very young reporter from Regina "died suddenly" recently, as well.

 

 

Yet Jessica Rob herself says that her collapse had nothing to do with vaccines, but is a personal health issue. 

How long will it take before you stop your fear-porn and stop spreading misinformation?

 

[Goddess]

Surveillance of COVID-19 vaccine safety among elderly persons aged 65 years and older - ScienceDirect

New Study: Surveillance of COVID-19 vaccine safety among elderly persons aged 65 years and older Using surveillance data from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

30,712,101 elderly people.

December 11, 2020 through Jan 15, 2022 34,639,937 Pfizer doses.

Findings?

4 signals were found that meet the threshold.

-pulmonary embolism (RR = 1.54)

-acute myocardial infarction (RR = 1.42),

-disseminated intravascular coagulation (RR = 1.91)

-immune thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.44)

Findings are entirely unsurprising if you’ve been paying attention.

 

Pfizer COVID vaccine increases risk of lung blood clots 50%.

Quote

 

“Our study has several strengths. This is the largest study of a population of more than 25 million elderly persons who are vulnerable to COVID-19 infections and complications- including residents of long-term care facilities.“

“By using the large Medicare nationwide database with longitudinal linkage of vaccination, health services, and demographic information for millions of elderly persons we can detect even small increases in the relative risk of rare outcomes for multiple vaccines that may not be captured in pre-authorization clinical trials.”

 

Will the CDC & FDA doing anything about this or will they keep our elderly population in the dark?

1. Pulmonary embolism A pulmonary embolism is a blood clot that blocks and stops blood flow to an artery in the lung. It usually starts deep in the leg and moves up to the lungs.

2. Acute myocardial infarction (classic heart attack) is a sudden loss of blood flow and oxygenation to the heart muscle. It’s usually caused by a blockage of some sort in the coronary arteries.

3. Disseminated intravascular coagulation is the clotting of blood throughout the body’s vessels that can develop into uncontrollable bleeding once your clotting factor and platelets are used up.

4. Immune thrombocytopenia is a platelet disorder that disrupts how the blood clots, this is because the immune system begins to attack its own body and starts destroying platelets.

As you can see these aren’t just “side effects”, these are potentially life threatening conditions.

If we are seeing clear safety signals and it looks like we are, when will our Doctors, Academics, Media and Government acknowledge the dangers and admit they were wrong?

Edited January 10, 2023 by Goddess

[Goddess]

Satire.  Sort of.

Experts Say They Don't Know What Thing Is Causing Everyone To Suddenly Collapse, But It's Definitely Not That One Thing | Babylon Bee

[Goddess]

From Dr. Vinay Prasad:

For the last few weeks, the media has been filled with stories about a “tripledemic”—a combination of Covid-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which is being blamed for high rates of illness and an excess of hospitalizations, especially among children.

The message is clear: fear winter respiratory viruses, and take every possible precaution you can. It’s time to slap on those N95s once more, avoid crowds, and socialize outdoors if possible.  

But the best available evidence contradicts the narrative from the media and many public health officials. The precautions being recommended are essentially unproven, amounting basically to superstition, like wearing garlic to ward off vampires.

The insistence on never-ending precautions in the face of inevitable exposure to germs is not only medically misguided, it also threatens to stigmatize the most mundane human interactions.

In the case of the tripledemic, there is one action the media and its favored experts want more than anything else: increased masking.  But 67 studies on masking for respiratory illness done prior to the pandemic, show:

Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people).

Three important points to make about the tripledemic:

1. There is limited evidence that it exists.

2. There is no avoiding respiratory viruses. 

3. There is no evidence that prolonged precautions delay the inevitable.

First, let’s consider the evidence of the so-called tripledemic. Although flu season began early, there is limited evidence that it is worse than typical years. Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, says: “It feels like it’s bad because hospitals are so understaffed, but this does not represent an outlier season.”

RSV, which is a standard childhood illness, generally hits very young children and the elderly hardest. There are ongoing shortages both in terms of medicine, like Tylenol, and pediatric hospital beds. But the latter is less about the rising cases and more about the disappearance of pediatric services. Caring for children is not a major moneymaker for hospitals, and often earns less than adult hospitalization. Over the past two decades, as the Washington Post explained, there has been a major decline in pediatric beds nationally. The bottom line: we should be less afraid of RSV and more concerned about our broken ability to handle routine viral illness year to year.

Second, there is no avoiding respiratory viruses. With extreme, draconian measures, exposure to respiratory viruses can be delayed, but can never be averted. This is in contrast with, say, our ability to avoid contaminated drinking water or sexually transmitted diseases. The difference is that human beings have to breathe every minute of every day. And, as humans are social creatures, most of that breathing will naturally be very close to other human beings.

“The piper must be paid at some point in nature; kids will get sick, and it has nothing to do with a more compromised immune system,” says Dr. Danuta Skowronski from the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control.

This point must be emphasized. It is natural, healthy, and necessary for young children to be exposed to many viruses. In order for children to build immunity to common pathogens—in order for them to develop a normally functioning immune system—they must have such exposure, which will sometimes make them sick.

And third, there is no evidence that the interventions purported to stop Covid-19, flu, and RSV will help. Before Covid-19, the evidence to support masking was thin.  A survey of masking trials were done prior to the advent of Covid-19, examining whether masks stopped transmission of respiratory viruses. Fourteen of the 16 trials showed masks were ineffective at this. In other words, the pre-Covid evidence was clear that recommending masks for the average person was useless. This is likely one reason why Dr. Anthony Fauci, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and others initially advised against masking. 

Even worse, the evidence for masking young children for Covid-19, flu, and RSV viruses is entirely lacking.

The two best studies on the topic take advantage of natural experiments. One experiment, in the Catalonia region of Spain, looked at the effectiveness of masking children to prevent Covid-19. The authors took advantage of a unique fact: that children six years and older in this region wore masks and those younger than six did not. If masking had a protective effect, then kids just younger than six years would have higher rates of Covid than those just older. But there was no such pattern. In a separate analysis in Finland, the authors compared two towns with different policies for kids between the ages of 10 and 12. One town masked, the other didn’t. There was no benefit seen from masking there either. The spread of COVID19 was identical. There was no difference at all.

Additionally, at this point, at least 9 out of 10 American kids have already had Covid-19. We know that having had and recovered from Covid-19—which confers what’s known as natural immunity—doesn’t mean you will never get Covid again. But if you were to, the odds are that it would be milder and less severe. Masking kids who had COVID-19 is pointless in two ways. One, there is no evidence to suggest that it will delay the time until they get it again. Second, it’s being done to prevent something that—for them, at this point in the pandemic—is usually less severe than the common flu or even some cold viruses.

So what is the tripledemic in reality?  

Covid-19 disrupted all aspects of life. It disrupted immigration, travel, business, education, religious practices, family life—society itself. Some of these disruptions interfered with the spread of respiratory viruses like RSV and flu. The fact that Covid-19 continued to spread despite all this, is a testament to how contagious it is, especially in a population that had at the time essentially no preexisting immunity. 

Now, as the disruptions fade, other viruses have inevitably returned. Hospitals should prepare for this. If pediatric beds are what’s in short supply, federal reimbursement should pay for pediatric beds. This would entice hospitals to expand capacity where it is needed. That’s a more productive solution than suggesting people withdraw from gatherings, or remain masked in perpetuity.

Three years into the pandemic, we face a crucial question: How do we want to live the rest of our lives? Like most, my answer is: as normal.

 

[Goddess]

Legitimizing Irrational Anxiety Is Bad Medicine

by Dr. Vinay Prasad

Medicine has always drawn a distinction between appropriate and inappropriate emotions. If someone experiences sadness, loss of appetite, and lack of desire to get out of bed, it is relevant if they just lost a spouse versus if this is simply Wednesday.

Similarly, if you take appropriate precautions when you climb Half Dome you are being reasonable, but if you refuse to climb 12 stairs out of fear of heights, you are not, and you might benefit from mental health care.

It's time for medical professionals to advise young, middle age, healthy people to throw away your n95, leave your C02 monitor at home and get back to life. These are not proportionate responses. You are not acting reasonably. Someone needs to tell you. Anyone who plans on being around for the next decade has only two things guaranteed: You will definitely get Covid19 and you will definitely pay taxes.

As of Sept 2022, everyone in America has had plenty of opportunity to be vaccinated if they wish. Most have had and recovered from the virus, making their risk from reinfection low. Even those who've been vaccinated suffered breakthrough at astonishing rates. Finally, the virus itself has drifted towards less lethality.

The IFR for Covid19 is now less than flu. Fear of long COVID is irrational. In so far as it exists, you have to accept it. In so far as it is overblown, you can ignore it. There is no good evidence boosters or Paxlovid or anything changes it. That evidence would require a clear consistent and reproducible definition. Good luck with that.

Over the next few years, COVID-19 will engulf everyone on Earth. Over the next few decades, it will engulf everyone many times over.

Given: you're eventually going to get Covid19 and it's less dangerous than flu, you should take all the same precautions you used to take for flu, but no more.

You definitely washed your hands in the winter back in 2019, and you should do that now. At the same time you don't have to be excessive about it. You can do it like you did before, reasonably.

You KNOW what you didn't do. You didn't carry a CO2 monitor around and have a heart attack if it goes to 1800 PPM or whatever the hell scale it uses. In fact, if you even know the scale, you might benefit to talking to someone. Twitter is filled with paranoid images of people's CO2 monitor numbers.

Quote

 

Me:  This is true.  I've seen it.

 

Pre-covid, you didn't wear a n95 mask when you went to the grocery store. Clutching it tight if you heard someone cough. You don’t need to do that now.

You didn't stuff a child's face into a counterfeit, untested n95 mask. If you didn't do it then, you shouldn't do that today. You didn’t let mid-level school officials make up masking rules (4 days after a 3 day break— just cuz), and we should not do that now. (It has no good evidence.)

You would never shield your face from an infant in daycare, for hour after hour, day after day. Doing that now is deranged. The potential downside far exceeds any potential upside.

Pre-covid, you were willing to eat food with friends and colleagues inside. You should do that now.

The CDC has done you a disservice. It has enabled people to act irrationally by pushing Paxlovid in people in whom it was not studied. It encouraged people to mask without ever generating data if the community recommendation worked, and worse: long after it made sense. It recently encouraged healthy 20 year-olds to wear an n95— that is frankly bad advice. Any covid benefit is dwarfed by the downsides of making a 20 year-old think they are vulnerable and weak. The CDC may be doing this for political rather than medical reasons. It caters to the most irrational pole of one political party. Alternatively, the agency is filled with "work from home" people— who themselves could benefit from frank advice.

Some may disagree with my prescription: If you do, you should articulate the reason. Do you really think you can avoid COVID-19 indefinitely? Are you going to carry a CO2 monitor into 2025? How long will you continue this? Do you think it's possible you're acting irrationally?

At this moment in time, COVID19 is not a risk big enough to most people to justify behaving differently than you did pre-covid. When I see a healthy 20 year-old wearing an n95 mask outside, I feel pity for them. They are the victim of irrational messaging, virtual signaling, tribalism, and possibly also fear and anxiety. We should encourage them to live normally, and relax.

Looking down at your Co2 monitor and snapping photos for Twitter is no way to live.

You need some frank advice: it’s time to stop, for your own sake and those around you.

 

[Goddess]

Dr. John Mandrola

Dec. 12, 2022

 

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination does not prevent infection nor stop transmission.

Many studies support this fact. I am most drawn to the data from Portugal. Portugal was one of most vaccinated countries, yet, it had a clear surge of SARS-CoV-2 infections and hospitalizations.

The red boxes highlight the dates.

The vaccine’s inability to stop infection and transmission renders the decision to take a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination a personal decision not a societal one—like the choice to avoid smoking and exercise regularly.

---

Now we can combine these statements to consider the decision to coerce young people to take additional vaccine shots—as is being done on many US college campuses and in the military.

In late 2022, a young person (without severe health issues) has a near-zero risk from SARS-CoV-2. They were very low risk in 2020-2021, but it’s even lower now.

Yet a young person has a finite risk from vaccine myocarditis. The risk for a vaccine myocarditis after a booster in a male may be in the order of 1 in 1000.

A study from Thailand found a 2.3% incidence of cardiac enzyme elevations after a second dose of mRNA vaccination in adolescents. A similar study from Swiss authors presented at the European Society of Cardiology meeting in August reported similar numbers after a booster vaccination. (We need more studies of this sort,)

---

These benefit/harm calculations form the core of medical decision-making.

Humans feel differently about statistics, so clinicians try to align decisions based on what patients feel are best for them.

Some patients would fear the viral infection and choose to get another booster vaccination. They might be worried about the risk of myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 infection, though the incidence of that is hard to sort out.

(This recent study of unvaccinated patients in Israel found “no increase in the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-19 recovered patients compared to uninfected matched controls.”)

Other people would have greater fear from vaccine myocarditis and avoid the booster.

Given the current facts, I see no justification to prevent this normal decision making.

In 2022, SARS-CoV-2 vaccine mandates are wrong, and I oppose them.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Goddess

[Goddess]

Regarding Canada's Vaccine Injury Support Program:

In nearly 20 months, only 50 out of 1,299 claims have been processed thus far with 18 claims rejected based on the data from the Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) website.